About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
or not he should be charged or rather he should be classified as an enemy combatant. lindsey graham was on of the chat shows yesterday, said absolutely. this guy is not a common criminal. he was out to kill americans. what do you think? enemy combatant? >> well, there are some people who think that enemy commits an act of terrorism should be tried in our criminal carts and others think they should be designated as enemy combatants. it's complicated question and seems to me what this administration should be looking at is what is the best way to get this person -- to bring him to justice, and also the best route to insure that we get the best information we can because that information could be helpful in prehave noting additional attacks in the future and that could provide answers which could bring some measure of closure to the victims as the families. i suspect what's going on now is you're having a talk in the administration looking at all the information and deciding what's the best way to treat both of those objectives. >> steve: at this point it sounds like what the governmen
is not -- i mean, she works in cahoots with lindsey graham and john mccain. you're talking about more moderate republicans, maybe they will face blowback for not having gone maybe the way of sort of the moral choice. >> the problem is, even if you succeed in congress with some kind of legislation, you still will not get enough to do much about gun violence, as important as background checks are, that is not going to significantly bring down the level of gun violence in this country. >> the fight lives another day. thanks to luke russert and bob. i'll see you back here tomorrow. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. >>> and a big cold front is stretches across most of the country on the northwest side of it. we have some heavy snow, especially across nebraska and south dakota today, but we're also looking at the threat of strong storms, especially down through oklahoma, where some isolated tornadoes are possible today. also see a round of thunderstorms in atlanta, detroit and chicago. temperatures in the southeast about 81. very logical thinker. (laughs) i'm telling you right now, the girl back at
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8